Legal Case Studies: Chandelier Seizure and Gender Discrimination

Case Study A: Chandelier Seizure

Assignment files should be prepared using MS Word to allow your tutor to insert comments and feedback. If you do not have this software, contact your tutor to discuss whether other arrangements can be accommodated. Instructions: This assignment should be done after studying Units 12 and 13 and completing the quizzes for these units. Complete both case studies. Case Study A Marlie carries on a business of selling new and used lamps. In 2009, she obtained an operating line of credit from the Bank of Nova Scotia. Marlie gave the bank a security interest in all her present and future assets. Jordan is a dealer in imported chandeliers. He and Marlie agree that he will give her possession of a dozen chandeliers to sell on his behalf. Marlie is not obliged to pay for the chandeliers unless she keeps them for more than 30 days. Marlie goes into default on her loan. The bank seizes all of her inventory, including the 12 chandeliers. Jordan finds out about the seizure and demands the chandeliers, saying that they are his, but the bank disputes this. Is Jordan entitled to get the chandeliers back? Structure your answer following the Marking Rubric below. . In relation to the contest between the bank and Jordan, identifies the legal question in relation to the chandeliers, which is raised by the scenario. . Identifies and explains the possible legal relationship between Jordan and Marlie that may benefit Jordan and why it would benefit him. /10 3. Identifies the factual elements, which must be proved to show the existence of the legal relationship referred to above 4. Analyzes the scenario to see if the factual elements referred to above are present. /10 5. Comes to a conclusion concerning the strength of Jordan’s claim based on the analysis above. Luke owns a lifeguard consulting company, supplying lifeguarding services to public and private schools in Edmonton. One of his female employees has made a complaint to the Alberta Human Rights Commission against Luke concerning gender discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace. The employee alleges that she and the other women lifeguards were recently forced to wear newly issued skimpy company bikinis instead of the previous one-piece suits while performing their lifeguarding duties. Those who refused would be given last choice on shifts (which, practically speaking, meant that they would be getting no shifts). The complainant protested to Luke but eventually gave in since it was too late in the summer to find another job. Additionally, the employee claims that, since the female staff was forced to wear the bikinis, Luke drops in constantly for site visits. His visits with females are more frequent and much longer lasting than with male staff. In fact, it is alleged that these visits have earned him the nickname of “Leering Luke.” Several female employees have told Luke that they find his behaviour unwelcome and are uncomfortable wearing the bikinis. Luke knows about his nickname but stands behind his policy. According to Luke, business has increased and, as a result, there has been more to “supervise” at each visit. Explain the concepts of gender discrimination and sexual harassment. Identify facts in the scenario which may support the employee’s claim and consider what other unstated facts, if proved, might also provide support. Identify a defense that Luke may raise. State your conclusion whether the situation involved discrimination or harassment, referring to the relevant facts and the strength of the defense. The following websites will help you with Case Study B: Alberta Human Rights: Discrimination (PDF) Alberta Human Rights Commission: Sexual harassments Alberta Human Rights Commission: Bona fide occupational requirements Structure your answer following the Marking Rubric below.  Identifies and explains the legal descriptions (or definitions) of gender discrimination and sexual harassment. 2. Lists the facts that may tend to show discrimination or harassment and explain why they do. Suggests any other facts which are not stated but might be implied that also support the claim. 3. Identifies and explains a defense Luke may raise in relation to his actions. Suggests facts which are not stated but might be implied that undermine this defense.  4. Arrives at a reasoned conclusion based on all the facts and the strength of the defense.